Colorado Supreme Court affirms water court ruling
Court Alerts
The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a water court's ruling over water rights being sought to serve about 50,000 people in Arapahoe County.
As part of a project with the East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, the United Water and Sanitation District had sought to acquire agricultural water rights held by Burlington Ditch Land and Reservoir Co. and the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Co. and change them to water rights for municipal uses.
The East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District planned to use the water on the South Platte River so it wouldn't have to rely as much on groundwater as more people move in. Demand is currently around 9,000 acre-feet per year, but the district projects that will grow to around 14,000 acre-feet annually within 20 years, according to court documents.
On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with a water court ruling that limited what could be considered the irrigation companies' historical consumptive use of their water, which helps determine how much water can be converted to municipal use. The water court had said it was trying to protect against harm to other water rights.
Related listings
-
Court refuses to reconsider Spector's appeal
Court Alerts 05/30/2011An appeals court on Friday refused to reconsider music producer Phil Spector's appeal of his murder conviction, saying there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The California 2nd District Court of Appeal panel acknowledged it did not consider an...
-
Ala. tried to close home where twisters killed 7
Court Alerts 05/27/2011The government sued last fall to close an assisted living facility where nine elderly, disabled people lived in two double-wide mobile homes parked in a valley miles from the nearest town. Yet the facility was still open April 27, when a tornado smac...
-
Deliberations Tuesday in co-op lawyer trial
Court Alerts 05/27/2011Deliberations will resume Tuesday in the felony theft trial of an attorney accused of stealing from a Central Texas electric cooperative. Jurors in Kendall County failed to reach a verdict Thursday in the trial of Walter Demond, who did work for the ...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.